Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce, Says Wife's Claim Of 'Not Recalling' Overnight Stays With Another Man Invites Judicial Suspicion
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal preferred by a wife, challenging the divorce decree passed over her alleged extra marital relationship with two men.While the wife sought to explain her prolonged communications with them as 'professional relationship', the Family Court had found she failed to explain her overnight stays with them.Agreeing, a division bench of Justices...
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal preferred by a wife, challenging the divorce decree passed over her alleged extra marital relationship with two men.
While the wife sought to explain her prolonged communications with them as 'professional relationship', the Family Court had found she failed to explain her overnight stays with them.
Agreeing, a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,
“...the Appellant repeatedly answered that she “does not recollect” or “does not remember”. Far from being categoric denials, the evasive responses, given to direct and specific questions, naturally invite judicial suspicion, for it is implausible that a person of ordinary faculties would fail to recall overnight stays at particular locations in the company of a named individual.”
It further noted that the Appellant-Wife failed to produce even a single document, such as a contract, invoice, email trail, or any other record, that could substantiate the existence of a genuine professional relationship.
It also took note of an email correspondence, which contained material of an obscene and indecorous nature, wholly inconsistent with professional communication. The Court thus observed,
“In our considered view, infidelity need not always be proved through direct or ocular evidence. Continuous conduct that perpetuates a situation wherein more than a mere reasonable apprehension of unfaithfulness or moral betrayal persists, coupled with the failure of the spouse who is alleged to have caused the genesis and continuity of such a condition of the mind, to effectively dissipate or dissuade through their testimony, the existence of such a state of affairs, constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
Infidelity, whether physical or emotional, corrodes the very foundation of marriage. It inflicts harm not upon the body but upon the psyche of the aggrieved spouse; a slow, silent, and devastating form of cruelty that destroys mutual trust and companionship. The Court, therefore, must assess not merely the act itself but the underlying attitude and intent reflected in such conduct.”
The Court added that when one spouse chooses to invest emotional intimacy, secrecy, and sustained communication in another person outside the marriage, while maintaining a façade of propriety, it results in mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional abandonment of the highest order.
In the present case, the Court said, the Appellant-Wife's conduct cannot be dismissed as a mere act of social cordiality or innocent indiscretion.
“Her evasive testimony, the absence of any credible documentary evidence to substantiate her alleged professional association with Sh. Pradeep Gupta and her inability to negate the overnight stays with him collectively form an unbroken chain of circumstances that points unmistakably to behaviour wholly incompatible with the obligations of fidelity and transparency inherent in a marital relationship,” it said.
As such, the divorce decree was upheld on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Appearance: Mr. Ashish Upadhyay and Mr. Pardeep Kumar Mishra, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Sanchit Sahani, Ms. Neha Jain, Mr. Taarak Duggal, Ms. Sneha Mathew, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Ms. Sakshi Jain and Mr. Chaitanya, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: KA v. SA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1577
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2023